Docket No. 78514-7 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 53570-6)  Facts:  Petitioner Darrell Everybodytalksabout was convicted of first and second degree felony murder in the Superior Court for King County.  Prior to his sentencing, an employee of the Department of Corrections interviewed Everybodytalksabout as part of her preparation of the presentence investigation report.  After Everybodytalksabout was sentenced to life in prison, he appealed his conviction, which was ultimately reversed on grounds that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence.  Upon retrial, the trial court admitted testimony by the Department of Corrections employee regarding incriminating statements Everybodytalksabout made during the interview.  After he was once again found guilty, Everybodytalksabout appealed his conviction, asserting that as his attorney was not present during the interview and as he had not been informed of his Miranda rights, he had been denied his right to counsel and testimony regarding the incriminating statements that he made during the interview should therefore not have been admitted.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Everybodytalksabout’s conviction, holding that Everybodytalksabout had not been denied his right to counsel insofar as the Department of Corrections employee had not deliberately elicited the incriminating statements during the interview. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78564-3 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 23956-0)  Facts:  Petitioner David Pitts entered into a contract with Glen Cloninger to convey his interest in a parcel of land that he was leasing to Cloninger if Pitts either defaulted on the lease or the lease expired before Pitts exercised his option to purchase.  The lease subsequently expired without Pitts either renewing his lease or purchasing the property but Pitts refused to convey his interest in the property to Cloninger.  After Cloninger assigned his interest in the property to respondent Gordon Crafts and his wife Jaymie, the Crafts filed suit against Pitts for specific performance.  However, Pitts had in the interim declared bankruptcy and had his debts discharged by the bankruptcy court.  The trial court ruled that the bankruptcy court had not discharged the Crafts’ action for specific performance and ordered Pitts to quitclaim the property. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79150-3 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 34484-0)  Facts:  Respondent Daniel Mulholland was convicted of six counts of first degree assault while armed with a firearm and one count of drive-by shooting in the Superior Court for Pierce County.  The trial court ordered that Mulholland’s first degree assault sentences be served consecutively, ruling that under Washington Revised Code §9.94A.589(1)(b) it had no discretion to order that these sentences be served concurrently.  After exhausting his direct appeals, Mulholland filed a personal restraint petition in the Washington Court of Appeals.  It asserted that the trial court erred in ruling that it lacked discretion to order that his first degree assault sentences be served concurrently. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78497-3 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 23732-0)  Facts:  Petitioner Caleb Nichols was convicted of possession of methamphetamine in the Superior Court for Spokane County after a search of his person following a traffic stop revealed methamphetamine.  Nichols appealed his conviction, asserting that the traffic stop was pretextual and that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to challenge its legality.  The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Nichols’ conviction. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78452-3  Facts:  Petitioner Ismael Armendariz was convicted of third degree assault and violating a no contact order in the Superior Court for King County and sentenced to five months in jail to be followed by one year of community custody.  The trial court also ordered that Armendariz have no contact with the victim for five years, the statutory maximum term for third degree assault.  Armendariz appealed the no contact order, asserting that the trial court lacked authority under Washington Revised Code §9.94A.505(8), which authorizes courts to impose crime-related prohibitions and affirmative conditions, to impose a no contact order effective for the statutory maximum term for his third degree assault conviction. Continue reading →

Docket No. 79371-9 (from Pierce)  Facts:  Petitioner Michael Boyd was charged with possession of child pornography in the Superior Court for Pierce County.  Boyd’s computer, which allegedly contains tens of thousands of images of child pornography, was seized as evidence.  Prior to trial, Boyd moved to compel the state of Washington to provide him with a copy of the computer’s hard drive to enable independent testing.  The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Boyd only has a right to reasonable access and entering an order that Boyd’s attorney be granted limited access to a copy of the hard drive in a state facility. Continue reading →

Docket No. 75800-0  Facts: Petitioner Ronald Hall was convicted of assault in the Superior Court for Pierce County and sentenced to an exceptional sentence on the basis of the trial court’s finding that the aggravating circumstances of deliberate cruelty and multiple injuries were present. Continue reading →

Docket No. 74964-7 (from King Case No. 99-1-07833-7 SEA)  Synopsis: Is imposing a firearm sentence enhancement based on a deadly weapon finding subject to harmless error analysis under Washington law, and if so, was the error in this case harmless? Continue reading →

Docket No. 79331-0 (from King Case No. 02-2-07993-8 SEA)  Facts:  Pursuant to Washington Revised Code §71.09, petitioner Kevin Ambers petitioned the Superior Court for King County for a trial to decide whether he should be unconditionally released from his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator.  In support of the petition, Ambers submitted a report and declaration from an expert in the field of sex offender treatment that estimated that, if released, he has a 36% likelihood of reoffending over a fifteen year period.  The superior court ruled that Ambers failed to present a prima facie case for release.  In particular, the superior court found that although the expert’s report constituted evidence of a change in condition, the 2005 amendments to §71.09 require that a sexually violent predator seeking unconditional release present evidence indicating not only that their condition has changed but also that they are safe to be at large in the community. Continue reading →

Docket No. 78481-7 (from King Case No. 05-2-19740-4 SEA)  Facts:

Petitioner Arkison was the court-appointed chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for Michelle Carter, who was injured in 2002 from a piece of furniture during the moving process by employees of a furniture moving company hired by respondent Ethan Allen Home Interiors. When Carter filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy that same year, she did not list the potential legal claim against Ethan Allen as an asset, and Arkison’s file to discharge Carter’s debts was accepted by the bankruptcy court and the case was closed. Continue reading →